Field and test information
During the four-month period covered by this Long Term Report, the Lightning Ascent Snowshoes were used in the Catskill and Adirondack Mountains of New York State, at elevations to 4500 ft (1372 m). Unfortunately, winter conditions ended early with a massive thaw and flood in the region, so this Long Term Report represents only approximately six weeks more experience than the Field Report. Minimum pack load was 12 lb (5.4 kg) or so for day hikes and up to 28 lb (11.3 kg) for backpacks. The lowest temperatures experienced during the testing period were at night, down to approximately 10 F (-12 C), and the highest temperatures were around 50 F (10 C).
Product Use and Performance
Despite the fact that I ran out of winter weather in which to test the snowshoes, they got a very adequate workout over the season, with (by my estimate) an aggregate climbing elevation of fifty thousand feet or so, and perhaps three hundred miles of hiking distance. In many regards, they behaved admirably, but I have certain caveats about their design, as explained below.
As noted in the Field Report (see “Ease of Walking”), I had concerns about the position of my foot in the binding, which I had addressed (at MSR's suggestion) by wearing the heel buckle to the outside of the shoe, rather than the inside as suggested in the literature that accompanied the product. This appeared to help a little at first, but under heavy use I still noted a tendency for my heel to migrate to the inside of the snowshoe, and no combination of adjustments seemed to prevent this. The somewhat canted position of my foot created as a result forces the inside edge of the snowshoe somewhat lower than the outside while walking; it also increases ankle and knee fatigue. This was sufficiently pronounced that a companion walking behind me remarked on it.
Late in the season I purchased a pair of plastic boots, Asolo Ottomilas, in size 13 1/2. This was too late to test the combination, except for fit—the snowshoes accommodated their bulk quite well. Had snow conditions permitted, I would have been curious to see if the stiff construction of these worked better with the Lightning Ascent snowshoes in countering this rotation than the leather boots I had generally been wearing over the winter. Still, plastic boots are heavy and cumbersome, and I purchased them primarily for periods of deep cold, especially when camping and mountaineering. I would not wish to wear them on a routine basis solely to improve snowshoe performance.
The wear to the snowshoe teeth continued apace. They are now nearly ground down to the level of the rest of the frame, and this despite the fact that much of the snow cover in the latter half of the winter was very deep indeed, so contact with rock was by no means solely responsible for the wear. Although I was reassured by MSR that this would not dramatically affect performance, there must be some detriment, else why put teeth around the frame anyway? Still, the shoes did perform well on relatively slick and crusted surfaces, although the extremely icy climb I especially wanted to test them on (a spring on the steep, ledged trail creates much ice) was initially covered with snow the first time I went, and had totally melted on my second visit.
The sagging to the decking I had reported seems not to have any detrimental effects on flotation. I noted no significant wear around the projecting heel plate (a mere hint of abrasion, nothing that troubles me especially). The paint has continued to flake, especially at areas where the shoe flexes, but I considered this largely cosmetic. There was no evidence of any weakening of the metal of the frame or crampons. There was, however, significant loss of paint at those areas.
I did note one possible negative aspect of the Lightning design on an Adirondack ascent that took me through very deep (up to—approximately—8 ft, i.e. 2.4 m) of snow. I had three companions ahead of me, and I found that I was tending to break through the thin crust, often to waist depth, far more than they. My conjecture (and it is just that) was that the sharp edges of the frame were cutting through the lightly packed snow, whereas the frames of the more conventional shoes of my companions (all on tubular frame shoes) were spreading weight more evenly. There could have been other factors at play here, including progressive weakening of the surface of the snow, so I am reluctant to attribute this issue solely to the Lightning design, and it may possibly have been entirely incidental to it. Additionally, that same design feature conveys definite advantage under other conditions, especially heavily crusted snow.
So far, I have been discussing shortcomings in the shoe. There is little here that I did not touch on in the Field Report. Though these are all very real concerns, I must emphasize that in many regards I rank these snowshoes as among the most effective I have used. Their edging capability is extremely good when side-hilling under difficult conditions, their maneuverability (in part because of their short length) is excellent for winter bushwhacks, and their flotation was adequate under most conditions I experienced. I calculated that their deck area was approximately fifteen percent less at 25 in (64 cm) length than a pair of 30 in (76 cm) shoes I often wear. This is a function of the geometry of the deck.
Rarely on descents did I have moments where I felt insecure on very steep passages between cliff bands. Often in the past I have felt that I must either tread very gingerly, glissade on my rear end, or do a very deft series of glissades on foot, the last of which has been known to end in a face-plant or worse. However, the MSR shoes generally felt very secure underfoot. That's not to say (as I ultimately discovered) that glissading is impossible. On very steep unconsolidated slopes, or in deep wet snow, a controlled glissade is eminently feasible, as I found out late in the season.
The heel elevator wasn't generally used, due to the sort of terrain I was covering, as the grade was too variable for it to be convenient to deploy them. However, in late March I did a very pleasant 800 foot (240 metre) ascent of a slide, which is the ideal terrain for this feature, a consistent steep grade. I found the Televator stable and quite helpful in easing the stress on my ankles during such an ascent. This was in the Catskills (on one of a very few Catskills slides). I also used the elevator a bit in the Adirondacks, but the climbs I did were not long slide ascents of the kind often found in that region.
Over the winter, I was able to assess the performance of the Lightning Ascents thoroughly, in all but a couple of the areas I had discussed in my various lists of testing strategies. So what's my final conclusion? I think that they are a terrifically innovative snowshoe design, potentially a true breakthrough, but that a little more refinement would create a truly superior product. As things stand, I would not hesitate to recommend them to friends (and have done so), but with caveats based on my experiences.
Summary
So, if I had my druthers, how would I change the design so that the essential qualities were retained but the problems previously discussed would be addressed? It's a little presumptuous for a non-engineer to make such suggestions, I fear, but here's my best shot!
- Wear to the frame needs to be reduced, especially on the teeth. One solution might be to use a different aluminum alloy. I spoke with a friend who was an aerospace engineer in an earlier professional incarnation. When I mentioned that the frames were “aircraft grade aluminum” his response was “which grade?” There are alloys with a wide variety of strengths and properties, and it seems not unlikely that there is one out there that's more resistant to abrasion. Failing this, I had wondered if a lightweight steel frame, or modular steel teeth, might not prove a better solution.
There would be a cost in weight associated with this, but it's a trade-off I personally would be happy to make for superior durability, within reason. It's worthy of note that the thin steel cross-members and the toe crampons, which are steel, showed very little wear in comparison to the aluminum circumferential teeth. - The problem with the foot-drift is tough to resolve. In order to optimize the shoe to a wide range of user gaits, many of the very good qualities of the binding might be lost. One solution could be a binding that may be manually rotated by the user to an optimal position and then locked in position.
- Though the stretching of the decking material troubled me, I don't think of it as a major issue. It seems very strong, although the fact that it performs best below freezing, and a certain amount of snowshoeing takes place well above these temperatures is a little bit of a shortcoming.
- I'd love to see a slightly longer version of the shoe for times where additional flotation is essential.
Likes (in part from Field Report)
- Exceptionally good grip on packed or crusted snow on both ascents and descents.
- Highly maneuverable, capable of very precise placement.
- Bindings are extremely secure. I never lost a snowshoe while walking.
- Bindings are easily disengaged by gloved hands, and do not freeze.
- Heel elevators are comfortable on protracted steep ascents, and are easily put in place (though I did not master doing so with a ski-pole, this may be the result of lousy dexterity on my part).
Dislikes
- Heavy wear to the teeth on the frame.
- The tendency of my heel to drift to the inner edge of the snowshoe.
- Sagging of the decking, especially above freezing
- Excessive loss of paint at areas not directly exposed to wear (cosmetic but unexpected in a quality product).
I thank BackpackGearTest and MSR for permitting me to participate in this truly fascinating and enjoyable test.
